Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 19, 2025

Integritas Solutions Group LLC v. Dragonfly Financial Technologies Corp

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:24-cv-08211
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Integritas Solutions Group v. Dragonfly Technologies, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing limited reopening requests.

Who this affects

Integritas Solutions Group LLC and Dragonfly Technologies Corp.; the order canceled their scheduled proceedings, terminated open motions, closed the case, and set conditions for any request to reopen or retain authority to enforce the settlement.

What happened

Integritas Solutions Group LLC v. Dragonfly Technologies Corp. ended after the parties informed the court that mediation had produced an agreement resolving all issues.

The court canceled scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs—including attorneys’ fees—and directed the clerk to close the case and terminate pending motions.

Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties 30 days to request reopening for good cause or to ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement agreement.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Integritas Solutions Group LLC v. Dragonfly Financial Technologies Corp · No. 1:24-cv-08211
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
May 19, 2025

Background

The court was notified on May 14, 2025, that mediation had resulted in an agreement resolving all issues between Integritas Solutions Group LLC and Dragonfly Technologies Corp. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

Order

The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

Possible Reopening or Continued Jurisdiction

Within 30 days, the parties could apply to reopen the case. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement, and requests filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.

If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning authority to enforce the settlement agreement—they had to submit the agreement under Rule 7.A of the court’s Individual Practices and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, canceled the scheduled proceedings and deadlines, terminated the open motions, and directed that the case be closed. The order also provided a 30-day procedure for seeking reopening or continued jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.